1999 PLP 1596 (SCMR)

ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, J

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chamber passed on 1-10-1998; whereby Writ Petition filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to allow him "to start realising the collection of taxes on the immovable property within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad in terms of the acceptance letter issued by the respondents in the auction conducted on 28-7-1998", was dismissed.

2. The relevant factual aspect of the matter is that the respondent for the first time gave a public notice on 25-4-1998 in newspaper known "Din" for auction of fee for transfer of immovable property for the year 1998-99 on 12-5-1998. It appears that no offer was received on this auction and, therefore, the public notice for this purpose was given at different times but that need not be referred as we are concerned with the notice published in the same newspaper "Din" on 11-7-1098 wherein auction time was given as 10 a.m. on 28-7-1998. But it is curious to note that on 17-7-1998 in the said newspaper a corrigendum appeared that the auction will now take place on 18-7-1998 i.e. the next date instead of 28-7-1998. Only two bids were received for 18-8-1998; one from the petitioner and the other from Safdar Shafique. However, a special sub-committee was formed which accepted the offer of the petitioner through negotiation. One Abdur Rashid filed civil suit wherein he challenged the change in the auction date and the acceptance of petitioner's bid through negotiation. As the record indicates this case is still pending and at one stage the trial Judge by an interim order directed to re-auction the contract.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner complained of violation of Rules 4, 5, of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990 and argued that the first auction for the relevant area was to be held 2 months before the start of the fiscal year and that no subsequent attempt for auction shall be made after.15 days from the first attempt. It was explained that auction in this case was advertised four times which could not be done legally. It was also argued that the petitioner having deposited the bid money could not be denied the contract on the principle of promissory estoppel. Some precedent cases were referred in support of her contention. It was also argued that the civil suit lodged by Abdur Rashid was also misconceived as he had not locus standi to challenge the auction in favour of the petitioner and that the orders passed therein affecting adversely the interest of the petitioner were also bad in law. The learned counsel representing the respondents opposed the submissions and -supported the impugned order.

4. This could, however, not be controverted that the auction was advertised for 28-7-1998 but through publication on 17-7-1998 the said date was accelerated and fixed as 18-7-1998 i.e. the next day and on this date the bid of the petitioner was accepted through negotiation. We could not be shown any justification for this change in the date neither any necessity could be pointed out of settling the matter through negotiation. Moreover, prima facie, this also did not fulfil the requirement of seven days' notice under the rules. However, we would avoid to discuss the merits of the contentions advanced from petitioner's side; as firstly, admittedly the suit filed by Abdur Rashid is pending adjudication and all these points would arise therein and, therefore, our determination of these contentions would adversely affect the case of one or the other side and secondly, points agitated before us involve factual controvers which the parties would be in a better position to raise and prove at the trial after examining evidence in support of their pleas and thirdly, it appears that these points were not argued in the High Court in the manner these were agitated before us as there is no finding of the High Court on these submissions. Leave is refused and petition is dismissed. H.B.T./A/122/S Petition dismissed